Man made global warming is real.

Started by Diomedes, January 23, 2007, 11:37:52 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

troyhstewart

Quote from: Eaglez on July 11, 2007, 02:49:57 PM
The infamous Newsweek Article on Global Cooling (1975)

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Seemingly, it did cool between 1945-68, dropping by what I think the article cites at 1/2 a degree C.

I've seen some graphs (Wiki) that show the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were not as intense at what is purportedly happening now, but the evidence that it did occur and was relatively severe in effect and lasted for an incredibly long periods of time lend credence to the notion that natural variations are real and need to be accounted for when viewing these doomsday scenarios. For all we know we could just be going through a greater spike now with possible cooling later. If you extrapolate data from the past it seems plausible just as plausible as catastrophic global warming if not more plausible.

Also, I would argue that society can better gauge temperature variations now than we could even 30 years ago. The data is more likely getting more precise. When more precise data is weighed against older data that did not have the benefit of modern technology it might show a greater disparity. 100 years ago you had mercury thermometers and other archaic temperature measuring mechanisms subject to human recording error -- today you have weather satellites that have numerous data points throughout the world that can better accurately gauge temperature variation. Just comparing the two data sets could lead to great disparity and error.

Is there global warming? Sure. Its been documented and the data sets have gotten better with newer technology. But is it completely human driven and would lead to the end of mankind? I don't think so.  Could humans maybe have something to do with it? Sure. It is definitely plausible. I just think the hysteria from the likes of Al Gore and Co. is completely unwarranted yet they are being fawned over as the only game in town.


There has also been evidence that major volcano eruptions can cause short term(several years) cooling by blocking sunlight.   Is it just a coincidence that the global cooling in this article happened around the same time two Atomic bombs were dropped and who knows how many tested? 

Geowhizzer

 THERE'S THE ANSWER!  Just nuke the hell out of Iran!

Yes I am just kidding.


Geowhizzer


Cerevant

An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself.

phillymic2000

Yeah, basically anything the "skeptic" says is irrelevant or does not apply now even though it may have had an impact before on the climate, more ish for the pile.

SD_Eagle5

Quote from: Cerevant on November 13, 2007, 10:07:37 AM
"Skeptics" can STFU.
I'm a skeptic.
The scientifically accepted age of the Earth is 4.6 billion years, keep that in mind before you start believing everything you hear.

reese125

so your saying the earth is old which means your a skeptic why?

SD_Eagle5

Do you know what the temperature of the Earth was that long ago? Can you tell me how much of an influence things like the Sun had at different points in time? GW is a bunch of made up nonsense. Use resources as you wish and don't recycle, that's my motto. farg everyone.

Wingspan

Using a 20-50 year span to justify the mass change of an object that is believed to be 4.6 billion years old is stupid.

That is the equivilant of you sneezing, and then using that sneeze to determine you have terminal cancer. Even using the span of 1000 years is not going to produce conclusive results.

Connection Problems

Sorry, SMF was unable to connect to the database. This may be caused by the server being busy. Please try again later.

SD_Eagle5

Quote from: Wingspan on November 13, 2007, 02:45:27 PM
Using a 20-50 year span to justify the mass change of an object that is believed to be 4.6 billion years old is stupid.

That is the equivilant of you sneezing, and then using that sneeze to determine you have terminal cancer. Even using the span of 1000 years is not going to produce conclusive results.



Great analogy.

I bought into the hype, then my Environmental Conservation Proffessor opened my eyes to the complete nonsense that Global Warming is.

reese125

QuoteDo you know what the temperature of the Earth was that long ago? Can you tell me how much of an influence things like the Sun had at different points in time? GW is a bunch of made up nonsense. Use resources as you wish and don't recycle, that's my motto. farg everyone.

haha...great ending.

seriously, I dont recycle and I dont put on a bandana, army shorts and play congos under a tree. I do however firmly believe that we greatly contribute to the earths degrade, but nothing will ever significantly get done as long as I am alive.

Thank you and god bless

SunMo

Quote from: SD_Eagle on November 13, 2007, 02:40:47 PM
GW is a bunch of made up nonsense. Use resources as you wish and don't recycle, that's my motto. farg everyone.

put that on a t-shirt made of whale-skin, and i'll buy one
I'm the Anti-Christ. You got me in a vendetta kind of mood.

hbionic

Just like my vote, I like to believe that changing light bulbs, recycling and conserving water actually makes a difference.
I said watch the game and you will see my spirit manifest.-ILLEAGLE 02/04/05


PoopyfaceMcGee

Quote from: SD_Eagle on November 13, 2007, 02:50:26 PM
Quote from: Wingspan on November 13, 2007, 02:45:27 PM
Using a 20-50 year span to justify the mass change of an object that is believed to be 4.6 billion years old is stupid.

That is the equivilant of you sneezing, and then using that sneeze to determine you have terminal cancer. Even using the span of 1000 years is not going to produce conclusive results.



Great analogy.

I bought into the hype, then my Environmental Conservation Professor opened my eyes to the complete nonsense that Global Warming is.

We're certainly in a period of warming.  The fact is that there are two things we do not and cannot know, and anyone jumping to conclusions either way on it is just guessing:

1.  Is it an irrecoverable upward turn, or is it part of the Earth's natural cycle?
2.  Are we as humans actually responsible and/or can we change any behavior to improve the Earth, or is it much bigger than our actions and not based on anything we do?

There are intelligent, informed people on both sides of the issues.  The problem I have with it is that thanks to popular opinion being so irrationally lopsided towards the title of this thread, even those who draw anything into question are labeled as Earth-haters.  Study the data.  Don't believe everything you hear, just because it makes you feel better.

That said, there is no reason not to conserve energy and resources.  Even if humans aren't killing the planet as many people believe, why try?